Which countries are sending their troops to fight ISIS/ISIL?
In terms of "boots on the ground," nobody has sent or is planning to send a serious contingent of forces.There are very few nations with an appetite for putting their soldiers in the line of fire in this conflict. The US, UK, Canada and Australia have sent small military missions, up to and including special forces, to serve as "advisers" and help coordinate the distribution of military and humanitarian supplies. But for the time being, Iraqi and Kurdish troops, as well as Western-backed Syrian rebels, will continue to bear the brunt of the fighting on the ground.In terms of fighting ISIS above the ground, the US and France have conducted bombing operations against ISIS, while other nations have provided airlift capacity to help shuttle supply equipment and humanitarian relief to Iraq.In all, and at the time of this writing, there are approximately† 50 nations in the coalition to fight ISIL.†I say "approximately" while the press statement says "more than" because their list includes multinational bodies.
What are the pros and cons of Canada sending in planes to help fight ISIL?
Pros:-We're contributing to the fight against a truly deplorable group of people. ISIS must not be allowed to establish itself as a genuine state, nor to harm the innocent in any country. Speaking only for myself (since not everyone approves of violence and killing) , killing these people is worthwhile. Cons:-It's a step toward getting us into another Afghanistan situation. I do believe that everyone has learned a lot from Afghanistan, and that even the Harper government doesn't want to go down that road twice. However, "mission creep" is still a possibility depending on how the conflict plays out.-Air strikes inevitably lead to civilian casualties. This has always been true, but modern Western societies are now sensitive to this issue. Today, we try to prevent harm to civilians whenever possible, but it isn't always possible in the context of making progress against the enemy. Every war in history has seen blameless civilians lose their lives, limbs, and livelihoods. This will be no different, and Canadians will be behind the triggers up in the sky. -It costs tax money. The Harper government is in the process of creating a fake budget surplus by slashing costs across the board, and especially in the military. They have, I believe, intentionally delayed procurement contracts beyond the 2015 election in order to maintain the false surplus. Money spent on military missions now is just adding to the costs that Harper has already obligated our country to in the future by delaying procurement. All at once, our government is facing the costs of: new light armour for the army, a fleet of new surface combat ships, new supply ships, new Arctic icebreakers, new marine helicopters, and of course the infamous issues with new multi-role combat jets. ALL AT ONCE! This is the military disaster Harper has created, and deploying our rinky-tink CF18s is just spending millions that could otherwise be banked to pay for other things within the military.
Do you hope that ISIS wins the war?
So you want ISIS to murder innocent men, women, and children? You think it is right of them to do so because we infidels may not convert to your "peaceful" religion? ISIS needs to be destroyed NOW before they bring Sharia Law to the rest of the world. Our freedom of speech will no longer be around. I think they have made it clear by murdering people if you speak out against Islam. Women will be covered and treated like garbage. They will beat, or even killed, if they do something wrong. They can't go anywhere without a man. Children will be married off to old, creepy perverted men. They are already selling INFANTS. Disgusting
What are the pros and cons of using statistical data to address crime?
The biggest issue of using statistical data to address crime is that the data available are on crimes known to the authorities (i.e., arrests, convictions, etc.) This, presumably, is only a subset of "all crime" and is inherently biased by those doing the arresting and convicting. Therefore, to "address crime" (whatever that means) based on crime statistics is to address a biased subset of all actual crime occurring.
What are the economic and political implications if India attacks ISIL / ISIS in Iraq and wins comprehensively?
If India attacks ISIS in Iraq then there will be both Pros and Cons-Pros--Petrol,Diesel And natural gas will be much cheaper.-Indian Dominance in Asia will increase.Cons--Indian National Congress will get a nice opportunity to defame BJP led Government.-Terrorism within india will rise.-India will then have much bitter relations with China and Pakistan and many nations.-Countless Indian soldiers will die.-Indian Economy will struggle during attack.-India may face adverse actions from UN.-There are many other disadvantages on part of India.According to UN ,Only NATO have official rights to attack ISIS in Iraq.So it's best for India to not to interfere in such matters.